Out of the Box » Powhatan Countyhttp://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box
Notes from the Archives at The Library of VirginiaWed, 25 Feb 2015 14:00:01 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.1“hundreds of the descendants of Indians have obtained their freedom:” Freedom Suits in 18th & 19th Century Virginiahttp://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box/2012/09/26/hundreds-of-the-descendants-of-indians-have-obtained-their-freedom-freedom-suits-in-18th-19th-century-virginia/
http://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box/2012/09/26/hundreds-of-the-descendants-of-indians-have-obtained-their-freedom-freedom-suits-in-18th-19th-century-virginia/#commentsWed, 26 Sep 2012 13:15:19 +0000http://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box/?p=5775

A small slip of paper on display in the Library of Virginia’s latest exhibitionYou Have No Right: Law and Justice in Virginia, running 24 September 2012-18 May 2013,was of immense importance to twelve people. It discloses, even though it does not state the fact in so many words, that on 2 May 1772 they gained their freedom after being held in slavery since each of them was born. The piece of paper and the fates of those Virginians illuminates a disturbing and little-known part of Virginia’s history, the enslavement of American Indians.

The paper came into the possession of the Library of Virginia in 1988 when it acquired a copy of volume two of John Tracy Atkyns, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the High Court of Chancery in the Time of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke . . . (London, 1765–1768) that had once been in the library of the colonial government in Williamsburg. One of the librarians in the cataloguing section showed it to me, knowing of my interest in that library. When she lifted it from her desk to hand it to me, a piece of paper that had been slipped between leaves in the middle of the volume fell out and fluttered to the floor. We were surprised, and I was even more surprised when I saw what … read more »

]]>

A small slip of paper on display in the Library of Virginia’s latest exhibitionYou Have No Right: Law and Justice in Virginia, running 24 September 2012-18 May 2013,was of immense importance to twelve people. It discloses, even though it does not state the fact in so many words, that on 2 May 1772 they gained their freedom after being held in slavery since each of them was born. The piece of paper and the fates of those Virginians illuminates a disturbing and little-known part of Virginia’s history, the enslavement of American Indians.

The paper came into the possession of the Library of Virginia in 1988 when it acquired a copy of volume two of John Tracy Atkyns, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the High Court of Chancery in the Time of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke . . . (London, 1765–1768) that had once been in the library of the colonial government in Williamsburg. One of the librarians in the cataloguing section showed it to me, knowing of my interest in that library. When she lifted it from her desk to hand it to me, a piece of paper that had been slipped between leaves in the middle of the volume fell out and fluttered to the floor. We were surprised, and I was even more surprised when I saw what it was. It was a 1780s or 1790s copy of the judgment in Robyn v. Hardiway (or Robin, or Hardaway), an unusually important case decided in the General Court of Virginia. The librarian and I presented the judgment to the archivists who added it to the meager surviving records of the colonial General Court.

The court case had two parts. First, attorneys argued about whether a 1682 law that allowed for the lifetime enslavement of Indians imported from other colonies had been repealed in 1684, 1691, or 1705. For decades Virginia’s courts had assumed that the 1684 invalidated the 1682 law, and “under that persuasion,” one of the attorneys informed the court, “hundreds of the descendants of Indians have obtained their freedom, on actions brought in this court.” The court concluded the first part of the case by deciding that the 1682 law had remained in effect until 1705. This decision enlarged the number of residents of Virginia who could not hope to gain their freedom by claiming to be descendants of Indian women illegally enslaved between 1684 and 1705.

A jury trial then established that the twelve people were descendants of an Indian woman who had been illegally enslaved. The jury awarded Robin, Hannah, Daniel, Cuffie, Isham, Moses, Peter, Judy, Autry, Silvia, Davy, and Ned, all of unstated age, one shilling in damages. Each received one penny, but each also received freedom.

Some excellent 21st-century scholarship demonstrates that English-speaking Virginians enslaved many more Indian residents of Virginia in the 17th century than earlier historians believed and that the enslavement may very well have taken place in spite of the laws or in the absence of laws governing the enslavement of Indians. Because almost all of the records of the colonial General Court burned in the fire that destroyed the state court house and much of the business district of Richmond in April 1865, the specific record of the outcome of the important 1772 freedom suit naming the persons freed is especially rare and valuable.

It was critically important that the twelve plaintiffs were descendants of “Indian women,” not of Indian men. In 1662 the Virginia General Assembly had passed a law that arose from a case that Elizabeth Key filed in the Northumberland County Court. She was the daughter of Thomas Key, a white man who had been a burgess in the 1630s, and one of his enslaved female laborers of African origin or descent. Elizabeth Key claimed her freedom as the daughter of a free man and won her case, but the assembly then changed the law. The act of 1662 explained that because “some doubts have arrisen whether children got by any Englishman upon a negro woman should be slave or ffree” it declared “that all children borne in this country shalbe held bound or free only according to the condition of the mother.”

Two other pieces of paper on exhibition in You Have No Right demonstrate that descendants of enslaved Indian women continued to file freedom suits in Virginia courts well into the 19th century. In May 1820, after seven years of tedious and delayed proceedings in the courts of Wythe and Powhatan Counties, Rachel Findlay won her freedom for the second time. When she was a girl in 1773, one year after the General Court issued its judgment in Robyn v. Hardiway, the court ruled that she and her family, too, were entitled to their freedom as descendants of an illegally enslaved Indian woman. But her owner, who lived in the part of Cumberland County that in 1777 became Powhatan County, sold rather than freed her. She lived in slavery in far-away Wythe County for forty years until learning in 1813 that she should have been freed in 1773.

When the Powhatan County Court finally issued its ruling in the May 1820 judgment Rachel vs. John Draper, Sr. that Rachel Findlay was a free person, she was an old woman with thirty or forty descendants, all of whom had lived all of their lives in slavery and should have always lived free. It is not known whether any or all of her children and grandchildren and perhaps great grandchildren ever learned that they, too, should have been living in freedom and not in slavery since their births or whether any of them actually became free as a result of her persistent pursuit of her law suit. A court judgment was not self-enforcing, especially for a group of people like Rachel Findlay’s descendants who probably lived in wide dispersion, perhaps some of them outside of Virginia. Some of them may have lived the remainder of their lives in slavery, too, as she did for forty-seven years.

About the time that Rachel Findlay won her freedom for the second time, members of the Evans family lost a freedom suit in Lynchburg in Charles Evans, etc. vs. Lewis B. Allen, 1821-033. Their story is truly tragic. In preparation for their case, members of the family or perhaps their court-appointed attorney compiled and submitted to the court a genealogical chart that demonstrated how the family members were related to one another. That sheet of paper is also on display in the Library of Virginia’s exhibition and together with other evidence might have persuaded a court that they were entitled to their freedom. However, their attorney, former Congressman Christopher Henderson Clark, had a stroke sometime in 1820 and failed to appear in court on behalf of his clients. As a consequence of the case not being presented when scheduled, the court dismissed it in 1821, leaving all of the people and the descendants of the females stuck in slavery for the remainder of their lives.

Slavery and the laws that created and protected it were cruel and unjust. Adding to the cruelty and injustice were the many unpredictable factors, like the illness of an attorney, that could prevent people from presenting their cases in court, or like the sale of Rachel before she could become free. It is now clear that colonial Virginians enslaved more Indians than historians once knew about, and it is evident that many more people had been illegally enslaved than historians once believed. Men, women, and children of African, American Indian, and also of European and mixed ancestry like Elizabeth Key fell victim to the system of slavery that sustained Virginia’s economy and society from the early years of the colonial period to the end of the American Civil War.

It is also now convenient for the first time to do thorough research on some of the freedom suits that people filed after the American Revolution. People who filed suits seeking freedom and alleging illegal enslavement often sought justice through local courts of chancery. The record of each surviving court case contains unique personal stories about the enslavement of one or more Virginians and the conditions under which they lived and how they attempted to gain their freedom. As part of the Library of Virginia’s project to preserve and make available to researchers the records of the commonwealth’s local chancery courts, archivists at the library have to date digitized thousands of case files containing several million pages of documents, including more than one hundred freedom suits. They are processing and digitizing more every day. The records of the cases that have been digitized can be viewed online in the Chancery Records Index.

Clerks of court did not know or use the surnames of the people who filed freedom suits, so to identify freedom suits it is necessary to search for chancery causes in which the style, or title, of the case does not include a surname. In the search field for the surname for the plaintiff(s), simply enter a tilde ~ which will return a list of cases in which the surname of the plaintiff is not part of the official name of the case.

-Brent Tarter, Founding Editor of the Dictionary of Virginia Biography

The first letter is from William Tompkins, a London silk weaver with mercantile aspirations, and is written to Jacob Michaux, his wife’s cousin in Cumberland County, Virginia. (The part of Cumberland County in which Michaux lived became Powhatan County in 1777.) Tompkins’ wife was a member of the Michaux family, Huguenots who fled France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and settled in England and in Virginia. Tompkins lived in Spittlefield, an area of London with a high concentration of Huguenot weavers. His letter concerns family matters and a recent shipment of goods he made to Virginia. Unfortunately the shipment arrived a few days before the flood of 1771, one of the worst floods in eighteenth-century Virginia.

The second letter is Jacob Michaux’s reply to William Tompkins. Jacob Michaux, grandson of Abraham Michaux of the Manakin Town (Virginia) Huguenot settlement, was a planter and ran a ferry across the James River. Michaux’s letter describes in detail the flood of 1771, the loss of Tompkin’s goods, consumer tastes along the upper James River, and family matters.

The first letter is from William Tompkins, a London silk weaver with mercantile aspirations, and is written to Jacob Michaux, his wife’s cousin in Cumberland County, Virginia. (The part of Cumberland County in which Michaux lived became Powhatan County in 1777.) Tompkins’ wife was a member of the Michaux family, Huguenots who fled France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and settled in England and in Virginia. Tompkins lived in Spittlefield, an area of London with a high concentration of Huguenot weavers. His letter concerns family matters and a recent shipment of goods he made to Virginia. Unfortunately the shipment arrived a few days before the flood of 1771, one of the worst floods in eighteenth-century Virginia.

The second letter is Jacob Michaux’s reply to William Tompkins. Jacob Michaux, grandson of Abraham Michaux of the Manakin Town (Virginia) Huguenot settlement, was a planter and ran a ferry across the James River. Michaux’s letter describes in detail the flood of 1771, the loss of Tompkin’s goods, consumer tastes along the upper James River, and family matters.

I received yours pr. Capt. Ashburne and am extremely glad to hear of you and your Familys good Health. I have several particulars to acquaint you as to the Alteration in our Family My Wife’s Father Mr. James Michaux Died about six weeks ago at the Age of 70 years he was Ill a long time before died. His eldest Son Paul died about 12 Months ago and his Wife much about the same time and left 5 Children three Girls and two Boys the eldest about 8 years and the youngest about 3 months I took the Youngest Boy William and different relations of the Mothers side took three Others the Youngest is at Nurse in London My Wife’s Eldest Sister Nancy has lost a Daughter( Elizabeth) at about 18 years old, these are all the Particulars that has happened since we wrote before. I regretted the loss of Mr.Payne as I was in hopes of his returning to his native Country living to see many happy years and acquainting you with our Situation. I went to see him 2 or 3 Days before he died, he was very glad to see me but was won to a Shadow he seem’d quite resigned for I believe he was a good young Man, he myself and wife often used to visit and talk about all he knew of Your Family’s which we heard with Pleasure but hope he is in a far happier Place now, in a Former letter I received from you twas your desire that we might have some Correspondence together in the Mercantile way which I dare say might be made very Advantageous to us both but since that time there has been so many Political [ Disputes] that Trade has been very Indifferent and hazardous, but now I think every thing seems to subside and there is a Probability to imagine twill be very brisk, for which Reasons I have Ship’d pr Capt Robert Walker of the Randolph ( who goes up James River ) Different European goods as pr Invoice, which I thought wou’d suit your part of the Country I have Charg’d every Article as they Cost with the different Expenses, from which you’ll be able to see whether twill be worth while to extend our Connections. The Silk Goods are made in my House and are therefore Cheaper than they can be sent by the Mercht. but if these sort are not so suitable as Others, if You’ll Please to send word I can send any Quantity of what you’ll think more suitable but then Particulars and the manner of Remittance shall be glad you’ll Inform me of the first Opportunity possible, the Mercantile Business is what I should be very fond of Provided your Answer will encourage me to pursue it in an Extensive manner, the Article of wrought Silks I should make a particular Object as the manufactory is carried on in my own home and Sewing Silk I could send on more Advantageous Terms than they are because I should Dye them my self as for every other Article would send what you think will sell best and make the return the soonest, I hope you’ll be able to understand every thing because I’m not acquainted with this Business therefore beg you’ll Excuse my fault think as Your Different Relations are Despond about the Country we might be able to doe a great Deale for the Spirit of Trade to pursue it with Ardour,and hope twil be a means of bringing a family Intimate that has been Seperated so many Years, and I sometimes think I should be able to do my self the Pleasure of Coming to see you if twas Posable to spare the time my wife and my relations Join in Love to all the Family and believe me to remain Affectionally

Wm. Tompkins

red Lyon Street

Spittlefield

[5] March 1771

Nearly a Copy Letter

To

Mr. William Tompkins

Red lion Street Spittlefields

D[ear] S[ir] This will give you the disagreable Act. of the loss of your good before they came to hand it so hapened that two or three days after they were landed at a Publick store at one of the convenientest Ports to me there came the greatest fresh in the River by far that was ever h[ ?] so great that it carried off all or almost all the Houses that ware built neer the River for receiving goods from the Shiping & many of our Tobo. Warehouses & many Thousand Hhd. of Tobo. & several Stores full of Goods ware carried off down the Stream the houses gen[er]ally broak to pieces & the goods ware scattered along the River fo[r] many Miles many of the goods when found ware looked on as a Prize by the finders & but very few came to the use of the proper owners, this was the fate of yours the house they ware landed in was carried off & though the house continued unbroak till it wint 20 or 30 Miles down the River then [ torn] of Negroes & others no better went to the house [ torn] got out the things ( in the spiled condition they ware in after lying in the water about a night & a Day ) part of which I received which ware delivered up to me & part found by a serch warrant & many things that I have no [ torn] came to their hand, I could not find to the amount of near 60 L sterling they charged 20 L for taking up the goods & their trouble for drying them & which I had [a]greed to pay before I knew there was so many missing the reward they they took out of the Goods I have some expectation of Proving that they did receive more of the good, then they have delivered me which if I can as they have demanded & received such a reward expect it will make them liable for what are missing I shall advise with an Attorney & if he gives encouragmt shall bring a Suit hope & to recover something however I expect to make but little out of the goods they are so damaged The Silks are so staned & spiled they are quite unsalable for which reason, I should send back part of them to you except a few pieces which if I can sell for first cast think it will be better than to send them back the People that [ torn ] cut some off almost ever piece & [torn] missing I shall endeave to make the best I can of what I have but that will be of little for they are much damaged & the goods missing are such as the takers thought the best part no doubt The Silks Embroidered Coat Necklace & ware very improper for this part of the country for the inhabitants of these Parts are generally poor no towns neer us the best livers here are only able to get the common necessaries & conveniences of Life without aiming at Shew or superfluities those that incline that way generally broke in a few Years & become the Poores[t] I have no doubt our way of living is very defrent from what you that live in a Capital Citty can imagine I wish I could ever see You here provided it could be to Your advantage but don’t expect that ever will be Your way of life will never do amongst us & as to the Mercantile business I expect that will nerever be inviting I expect The first attempt seems discouraging to You & as to my self my schemes for life have been for some years fixed on another plan for which reason on receiving your Letr. I concluded I would sell your goods in the best manner I could on a reasonable commission for my trouble & write you not to send any more but as there is such a loss in these I shall not chare You any thing for what I shall do for Your loss will be great at any rate. I should send some of the Silks by Captn. Walker but don’t know that I can have an opprertunaty to contrive them to the Ship before he will Sail the ship lies fifty miles from me & I don’t know as yet what I can sell therefore think it will be better [t]o wate for a other opty & sell what I can first

There is no material alteration among our relacions here the great is in our estate some are much damaged by the fresh I have lost I think to the value of about 5 or 6 hundred pounds in houses & other plantation affairs.

I have now three children and another near at hand we seame to be in away of adding one to the family almost ever year the oldest will be about four years old when we expect to have four in number there is no great alteracion amongst the rest of our relacions here the greatest is our Estates occasioned by the fresh lately I have lost I think in houses and plantation affairs to the amount of About five or six hundred pounds & don’t expext to make provision plenty for my family this next year though I yoused to make something considerable to spare